The term social action has its roots in sociology. Max Weber defines it in his Basic Concepts of Sociology. By his definition, social action has the following characteristics:
Concerns any time (past, present or future) and includes overt action as well as “failure to act and passive acceptance" (22).
Must be external and oriented toward other people (“External action is not social if it is oriented solely to the matter-of-fact behavior to objects” (22).)
Must be confined to cases where behavior is meaningfully oriented toward others (“a mere collision of two cyclists may be compared to a natural event. On the other hand, their attempt to avoid hitting each other, or whatever insults, blows, or friendly discussion might follow the collision, would constitute ‘social action’" (23).)
The term was appropriated for use in rhetoric by the treatment of the term in Carolyn Miller’s “Genre As Social Action.” In her piece she attempts to define genre through this concept of social action. As a result, one can piece together her definition of social action through what characteristics she uses to describe genre as a result of its connection to social action. Her definition does not challenge Webber’s, but rather builds upon its foundation.
Miller indicates that genre is “a point of connection between intention and effect, an aspect of social action” (153). Thus, one trait of her usage of social action is that it mediates the boundary between intention and effect. It might be considered the result of motive.
Later in her piece, Miller pulls from Herbert Blumer to say “the preponderant portion of social action in human society, particularly in a settled society, exists in the form of recurrent patterns of joint action” (158). Two characteristics of social action come from this quote. First, social action most often occurs in established society and more often than not refers to similar types of actions that are motivated by some exigence. However, it is important to note that this exigence still must be one that is socially situated, as described in Weber’s definition. Social action is still assumed to be directed externally toward other people in this understanding.
Controversy
While the term itself may not be a contested space within the field, it is composed of two terms that bring with them considerable baggage. Thinking through the treatment of these terms by Bruno Latour, in particular, does problematize the definitions constructed by Webber and Miller. First, Webber and Miller’s definitions assume that actors are human. However, Latour specifically states otherwise. In Latour’s conception of Actor Network Theory, actors can be human and non-human alike. One must consider then whether or not non-human actors engage in social action.
In addition, Latour problematizes the term social in and of itself. He claims that the term itself has been ”diluted” and argues against uses of it that assume that there is a domain of the “social.” Simply put: he questions whether there is such thing as a “society,” arguing, in part, against the fixed nature of this terminology and conceptions of this term that see the “social” as a material. Instead, he privileges an approach to the term social that considers it a “set of associations” that are dynamic, rather than fixed. Adopting Latour’s definition of social might contrast with Miller’s approach to social action as a recurrent pattern of action because it may assume a fixed idea of social relationships as a means for generating these recurrent patterns.
Sources
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University, 2007.
Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as Social Action,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 151-67.
Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkley: University of California Press, 1978.
Basic Definition of Social Action
The term social action has its roots in sociology. Max Weber defines it in his Basic Concepts of Sociology. By his definition, social action has the following characteristics:The term was appropriated for use in rhetoric by the treatment of the term in Carolyn Miller’s “Genre As Social Action.” In her piece she attempts to define genre through this concept of social action. As a result, one can piece together her definition of social action through what characteristics she uses to describe genre as a result of its connection to social action. Her definition does not challenge Webber’s, but rather builds upon its foundation.
Miller indicates that genre is “a point of connection between intention and effect, an aspect of social action” (153). Thus, one trait of her usage of social action is that it mediates the boundary between intention and effect. It might be considered the result of motive.
Later in her piece, Miller pulls from Herbert Blumer to say “the preponderant portion of social action in human society, particularly in a settled society, exists in the form of recurrent patterns of joint action” (158). Two characteristics of social action come from this quote. First, social action most often occurs in established society and more often than not refers to similar types of actions that are motivated by some exigence. However, it is important to note that this exigence still must be one that is socially situated, as described in Weber’s definition. Social action is still assumed to be directed externally toward other people in this understanding.
Controversy
While the term itself may not be a contested space within the field, it is composed of two terms that bring with them considerable baggage. Thinking through the treatment of these terms by Bruno Latour, in particular, does problematize the definitions constructed by Webber and Miller. First, Webber and Miller’s definitions assume that actors are human. However, Latour specifically states otherwise. In Latour’s conception of Actor Network Theory, actors can be human and non-human alike. One must consider then whether or not non-human actors engage in social action.In addition, Latour problematizes the term social in and of itself. He claims that the term itself has been ”diluted” and argues against uses of it that assume that there is a domain of the “social.” Simply put: he questions whether there is such thing as a “society,” arguing, in part, against the fixed nature of this terminology and conceptions of this term that see the “social” as a material. Instead, he privileges an approach to the term social that considers it a “set of associations” that are dynamic, rather than fixed. Adopting Latour’s definition of social might contrast with Miller’s approach to social action as a recurrent pattern of action because it may assume a fixed idea of social relationships as a means for generating these recurrent patterns.
Sources
Latour, Bruno. Reassembling the Social. Oxford: Oxford University, 2007.
Miller, Carolyn. “Genre as Social Action,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 70 (1984): 151-67.
Weber, Max. Economy and Society. Ed. Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkley: University of California Press, 1978.